LB01.06: VISIT-TO-VISIT BLOOD PRESSURE VARIABILITY AND CARDIOVASCULAR OUTCOMES IN FELODIPINE EVENT REDUCTION STUDY. (June 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Zhang, Y.; Zhang, X.; Liu, L.; Zanchetti, A.
• Is Part Of: Journal of hypertension. Volume 33(2015)Supplement 1
• Publication Date: 2015-06
• Subjects: Hypertension -- Periodicals; Hypertension -- Periodicals; 616.132005
• DOI: 10.1097/01.hjh.0000467468.46880.40
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1473-5598

Abstract

Abstract : Objective: Many antihypertensive outcome trials have shown that visit-to-visit blood pressure variability is correlated closely with clinical outcomes in hypertensive patients. The objective of the study was to investigate the relationship between visit-to-visit blood pressure variability (BPV) and the major cardiovascular outcomes in the Chinese hypertensive patients. Design and method: Felodipine Event Reduction (FEVER) study was a double-blind, randomized trial on 9711 Chinese hypertensive patients, in whom cardiovascular outcomes were significantly reduced by more intense therapy achieving a mean of 138 mmHg SBP compared with less-intense therapy achieving a mean of 142 mmHg. Visit-to-visit BPV during the follow-up period [defined as standard deviation (SD), coefficient of variation (CV), and average real variability(ARV)] was derived from casual cuff BP measures after six months follow-up until the end of the study. Hazard ratios (HRs), for the incidence of CVD associated with SD, CV, and ARV of SBP and DBP were calculated using Cox proportional hazard models. Overall predictive power [area under receiver operating characteristic (AUC ROC) curve] of the level of blood pressure, blood pressure variability and other baseline characteristics was calculated. Results: In FEVER study, visit-to-visit variability in SBP were significant predictors of subsequent stroke [eg, hazard ratios [HR] for ARV, SD and CV was 1.071 (95% CI: 1.025-1.118), 1.373 (95% CI: 1.159–1.626) and 0.572 (95% CI: 0.451–0, 726)]. Visit-to-visit variability in DBP were also showed similar trend [eg, HR for ARV, SD and CV was 1.066 (95% CI: 0.992–1.145), 1.931 (95% CI: 1.435–2.598) and 0.558 (95% CI: 0.438–0, 710)]. However, using the analysis of AUC ROC analysis, the risk importance sequence of the stroke events in this cohort was level of SBP, age, level of DBP ARV, SD, sex, CV and treatment. Conclusions: Visit-to-visit blood pressure variability has some effects on the cardiovascular outcomes in the Chinese hypertensive patents in the cohort in FEVER Study. However, blood pressure per se is even more important for the development of stroke in this group of patients.